In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes", Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said he loved watching banks "squirm" about rumors of his latest upcoming leak. (Source: CBS)

Questions about Mr. Assange's motives (he has called himself an anarchist in the past) went unasked, as did the question of whether Wikileaks might be profiting off the stock shifts its leaks cause. (Source: CBS)

Assange claims U.S. is utterly incapable of removing his site from the web

In an interview [video]
with the CBS show60 Minutes, the founder-and-chief of
the controversial secrets siteWikileaks discusses the recent
backlash against his site, following the release ofU.S.
MilitaryandState
Department secrets. He states, "The U.S. does not have the
technology to take the site down . ... Just the way our technology is
constructed, the way the Internet is constructed."

He adds, "We've had attacks on particular
domain names. Little pieces of infrastructure knocked out. But we now have some
2,000 fully independent in every way websites, where we're publishing around
the world. It is -- I mean, it's not possible to do."

Assange is referring to the fact that his site
lost its central domain name, most of its official hosting, and its donations
accounts. Volunteers, who host mirrors of the webpage, now sustain the
site. Attempting to access Wikileaks or searching for it in Google
results in visitors being redirected to one of these mirrored sites.

While the issue of whatWikileaks has
done is hot in the minds of many, much of the60
Minutes interview focuses on the site's threats that it will release
damning information implicating a major
U.S. bank in wrongdoing.

In an October 2009interviewwith the
International Data Group's publication ComputerWorld, Mr. Assange
claimed to possess a hard drive with a wealth of information from the Bank of
America.

Inan
interviewwith top business periodical Forbes, which
took place in late November, Wikileaks' Assange claimed to be preparing a
"megaleak", which would likely lead to a major U.S. financial
institution (presumably Bank of America) being investigated and potentially
charged by international authorities.

During the60
Minutes special, interest was high on the topic, but the interviewer's
attempt to extract more info from Mr. Assange was largely rebuffed. He
states, "I won't make any comment in relation to that upcoming
publication."

But he did express that he gains pleasure from the
ill effects on the financial world his news is causing. He states,
"I think it's great. We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe
it's them."

The interview did not touch on a significant point
in that regard -- the question of whether any Wikileaks members --
including Mr. Assange -- had profited off the stock shifts triggered by the
organization's new releases.

Some have suggested that Mr. Assange andWikileaks may
be using its new releases to profit on the stock market. Using certain
mechanisms the site could selectively release news, dropping a commercial
entity's stock price, making money off the drop. Indeed, the Bank of
America's share price dropped 3 percent in late 2010 on speculation that it was
inWikileaks crosshairs. The actual
release could drop stock further. It would be relatively easy for someone
affiliated with the site or its members to exploit the financial repercussions
of the site's actions.

Wikileaks is a relatively loosely
organized and regulated operation, with less than a dozen full time staff
members, by almost all accounts. The site publishes no details of its
operating procedures or finances.

Some seemed to imply that we were making up allegations that Wikileaks was manipulating the stock market to profit itself or its financiers. This is absolutely not the case. Those capable of a quick Google search should be able to find a number of stories on this topic, such as:
"Wikileaks is harmful now, but could become even more destructive" -- Kansas City Star

Which writes:

Shares in Bank of America dropped 3 percent Tuesday. Although they recovered Wednesday, banking analyst Dick Bove said on CNBC that this may represent a new means of stock-market manipulation, by which the unknown funders of Wikileaks could profit by cratering shares in targeted companies.

Also some challenged whether Assange was ever really an anarchist. Well he said he was, at least at one time, back in the 90s. In the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier by Suelette Dreyfus, which Mr. Assange edited, researched, and contributed text to, an autobiographical passage by Assange describes:

As he quietly backed out of the system, wiping away his footprints as he tip-toed away, Mendax [Assange] thought about what he had seen. He was deeply disturbed that any hacker would work for the US military.

Hackers, he thought, should be anarchists, not hawks.

He may well have changed his views since his teenage years in Australia in the 1980s, but it is well documented that at least at one time he expressed anarchistic views.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Afghanistan is fairly useless outside of it's proximity to the Middle East, so really, there is no reason why the USA would want to be there. Iraq is a war that was started by obviously false information given by George W. Bush. No matter if a war was warranted for OTHER reasons, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and since going into Iraq was set up as if there WAS a connection to 9/11, that is why so many are against it(now that people know the facts).

If there were documents that showed that George W. was using bad or obviously falsified information to justify invading Iraq and THOSE were leaked, THEN I can clearly see a lot of support, because it would help get US forces out of there. In this example, leaked information would help reduce violence.

One thing that you do not seem to have noticed is that the USA has not gotten ANY oil out of any of the countries in the Middle East over the past several wars, including Kuwait. There may be people making money off these wars, but the USA is not taking any oil, and that is another reason why all of these wars do NOTHING positive for the USA. Going to war to grab oil at least makes SOME logical sense, even if it isn't a proper way to do things. Going to war just so a certain Vice President could get more profits for his friends is clearly wrong, and is something that should have been punished by now.

On a final note(for this post at least), attacking the White House, Pentagon, or other military/government targets can be seen as a "valid" attack by those at war with the USA. The World Trade Center/Twin Towers on the other hand is a clearly civilian building. A terrorist attack, by definition, is one where CIVILIANS are the target. Collateral damage, as I said, is a part of war, but when you intentionally target civilians, that is what makes someone a terrorist, and once someone is a terrorist, they deserve to lose all protections of all kinds, including those under the Geneva Conventions. Basically, I endorse a slow and painful death for anyone terrorist, and feel that cruel and unusual punishments are DESERVED for those who target civilians.

Again, those who are trying to push out an occupying force, insurgents and such have at least a valid claim, but if they are targeting civilians who just happen to be in the region and who are not a part of what is going on over there, that is when they enter that realm of being terrorists. Also, the crap where people are kidnapped and then decapitated, since it goes against the Geneva Conventions is also not acceptable, so harsh treatment for THOSE types is called for as well.

quote: Afghanistan is fairly useless outside of it's proximity to the Middle East, so really, there is no reason why the USA would want to be there.

It was to retaliate for attacking the towers

quote: If there were documents that showed that George W. was using bad or obviously falsified information to justify invading Iraq and THOSE were leaked, THEN I can clearly see a lot of support, because it would help get US forces out of there. In this example, leaked information would help reduce violence.

You know what would help reduce the violence?

A American President humbly apologize over what the USA has don over the years to the middle east, and come clean about what they have done.I actually think most Muslims would accept suds a apology, and would take most of the hate away, if followed up by honest actions,

quote: One thing that you do not seem to have noticed is that the USA has not gotten ANY oil out of any of the countries in the Middle East over the past several wars, including Kuwait. There may be people making money off these wars, but the USA is not taking any oil, and that is another reason why all of these wars do NOTHING positive for the USA. Going to war to grab oil at least makes SOME logical sense, even if it isn't a proper way to do things. Going to war just so a certain Vice President could get more profits for his friends is clearly wrong, and is something that should have been punished by now.

Even do I have my doubts, I take your word for it.But do you think it makes a difference if USA buys the oil ore China?

If there is more oil on the market the prices go down all over the world, ore dose it matter to you if your petrol comes from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Norway ore the Gulf?The end result is the same.

quote: On a final note(for this post at least), attacking the White House, Pentagon, or other military/government targets can be seen as a "valid" attack by those at war with the USA. The World Trade Center/Twin Towers on the other hand is a clearly civilian building.

Did I not say the same you just repeating what I said: “First let me say I did not agree the actions taken on 9/11 by the terrorist“

quote: Also, the crap where people are kidnapped and then decapitated, since it goes against the Geneva Conventions is also not acceptable, so harsh treatment for THOSE types is called for as well.

Yeah US got real clean hands here, it dose not commit torture, Ooo yeah, properly best not to talk about US work outsourcing it did to other countries, for that tings they do not do, imho that's just a technicality, if i hire a hitman i would still go away to jail for the murder he commits, tell me what the difference here? >_<

For years now, America has not bin on the side of the Angels, and these leaks shows precisely how, why and ware, they are bulling the world.

Wonder when America is going to wake up, and take back control over there own country, instead of letting top 1% of the people that got just as mouths money as the lower 90%, control there life.

Before taliban got hold of afgan, the afgan produced 60% of the drug, but as soon as taliban contrlled in almost 86% of afganistan that production was reduced to 2-3%. This was unbearable to the "BID POWERS" & the drama of 9/11 happens. This is just one of the reason why Afganistan was attacked & taliban discredited.